JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 25th July, 2012 whereby petitioner's services were terminated. 2. Learned counsel submits that after regular selection, petitioner was appointed on probation for the period of two years vide order dated 21st May, 2005. He was suspended on 22.07.2007 till 06.05.2010. After departmental enquiry, the order for stopping of two grade increments with cumulative effect was passed and at the same time, remaining wages of suspension period were denied. The termination order was thereafter passed vide the order date 25th July, 20012 mainly on the ground that petitioner was not made permanent but he took benefit of fixation in unauthorized manner. In view of above, the Government took a decision to terminate his probationary period and at the same time, dispensed with his services. The order aforesaid was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rajasthan Civil Services (Disciplinary Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "Rules of 1958"). The petitioner was never served with the charge sheet for taking unauthorized benefit of fixation. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was appointed only on probation for a period of two years. He was charge sheeted and after enquiry, order of punishment was passed stopping two grade increments with cumulative effect. After the aforesaid order, the respondents noticed that the petitioner has taken benefit of fixation unauthorizedly, though he was not made permanent. In view of above, petitioner's services were rightly dispensed with. An employee appointed on probation can be terminated without holding enquiry. In view of above, this Court may not cause interference in the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 21st May 2005. The period of probation came to an end on 21.05.2007. The petitioner was, however, placed under suspension vide the order dated 21.11.2007. He remained under suspension till 06.05.2010. The petitioner was punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect pursuant to the charged sheet served upon him. The period of probation came to an end on 21.05.2007. The petitioner was, however, placed under suspension vide the order dated 21.11.2007. He remained under suspension till 06.05.2010. The petitioner was punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect pursuant to the charged sheet served upon him. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2012 was passed after a lapse of seven years of joining and, that too, by casting stigma on the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned order reveals allegations against the petitioner for taking benefit of fixation unauthorizedly without an order making him permanent. For the allegation aforesaid, the petitioner was not given apportunity of hearing. The impugned order was thus passed not only in violation of principles of natural justice but could have been after observing the Rules of 1958. The aforesaid has not been followed by the respondents, moreso when, on the earlier occasion, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet followed by enquiry of and punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. The impugned order thus cannot be allowed to sustain. The position of fact would have been different if the termination is simplicitor containing no allegation against the petitioner. 6. In view of discussion made above, the impugned order dated 25th July, 2012 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that few criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, though aforesaid statement has been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for petitioner as it is without supportive material. 8. The respondent/s would, however, be at liberty to take action against the petitioner, if they so choose not only in respect of allegations made in the impugned order but for any other incidence, if took place during the intervening period. It goes without saying that action aforesaid would be in accordance to the rules. 9. So far as back-wages is concerned, at present, it is not allowed in favour of the petitioner, however, if an enquiry is conducted against the petitioner and charges are found proved, then he would not be entitled for the back wages of the intervening period. The benefit of notional fixation would be available in that case. In case no action is taken or charge is not found proved,the petitioner would be entitled to back wages. 10. The benefit of notional fixation would be available in that case. In case no action is taken or charge is not found proved,the petitioner would be entitled to back wages. 10. This disposes of the stay application as well.Petition Allowed. *******